Uptake of co-testing with HPV and cytology for cervical screening: A population-based evaluation in the United States

Cuzick, Jack; Du, Ruofei; Adcock, Rachael; Kinney, Walter; Joste, Nancy E.; McDonald, Ruth; English, Kevin; Saslow, Debbie; Wheeler, Cosette M.; Wiggins, Charles L.; Robertson, Michael; Waxman, Alan G.; Jenison, Steven; Castle, Philip E.; Benard, Vicki B.; Melkonian, Stephanie C.; Howe, Jean; Kim, Jane J.; Stoler, Mark H.; Perkins, Rebecca B.; Gonzales, Janice L.; Torres, Salina; Rossi, Giovanna

doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.06.029

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, almost all biopsied women had abnormal cytology, and a substantial number of HPV16/18 positive, cytology negative women would not have been identified or biopsied during the period of our study, as co-testing was only used in about 50% of screening tests at that time. 47 Therefore, conclusions can only be reliably drawn for hrHPV positive women with abnormal cytology. The performance of cytology and to a lesser extent also HPV16/18 genotyping is subject to selection bias, as it is well known that referral bias can inflate the performance characteristics of the tests that are the basis of management decisions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

DNA methylation testing with S5 for triage of high‐risk HPV positive women

Adcock

Nedjai

Lörincz

et al. 2022

Intl Journal of Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methylation of host and viral genes is promising for triage of women with high‐risk human papillomavirus infections (hrHPV). Using a population‐based sample of hrHPV positive women with cervical biopsies within 12 months after cervical screening, the clinical value of the S5 methylation classifier (S5), HPV genotyping and cytology were compared as potential triage tests, for outcomes of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or greater (CIN3+), CIN2+ and CIN2, and the area under the curve (AUC) calculated. S5 scores increased with histopathology severity (Ptrend < .001). For CIN3+, the AUC was 0.780 suggesting S5 provides good discrimination between

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

DNA methylation testing with S5 for triage of high‐risk HPV positive women

Adcock

Nedjai

Lörincz

et al. 2022

Intl Journal of Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results from several randomized trials indicate an increase in the detection of precancerous lesions and a decrease in CC diagnoses after negative screening using these methods alone. The proportion of co-tests performed in one US state increased from 5.6% (2008) to 84.3% in women aged 30–64 years [ 60 ]. Interesting results were provided by a study in the pilot project “WOLPHSCREEN” on a group of 26,624 women, where it was shown that the incidence of CC significantly decreases when screening with co-testing is performed every 5 years [ 61 ].…”

Section: Review Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cervical Cancer Prophylaxis—State-of-the-Art and Perspectives

Poniewierza¹,

Panek

2022

Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Each year 604,127 new cases of cervical cancer (CC) are diagnosed, and 341,831 individuals die from the disease. It is the fourth most common cancer among women and the fourth most common cause of death from female cancers worldwide. The pathogenesis of CC is associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) infections and consists of several steps involving cell proliferation outside the human body’s control mechanisms. Strategies to prevent CC are based on screening and vaccination. Scope of the Review: The aim of this paper was to collect and analyze the available literature on the issue of CC prevention and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its implementation. For this purpose, PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched using keywords, such as “cervical cancer”; “HPV”; “prevention”; “prophylaxis”; “vaccination”; “screening” and “COVID-19” in different variations. Only articles published since 2018 were included in the study. Conclusions: Selected European countries have different CC prevention programs funded by national budgets. This translates into observed differences in the risk of death from CC (age-standardized rate Malta = 1.1, Poland = 5.9). COVID-19 pandemic due to disruption of CC screening may exacerbate these differences in the future. To improve the situation, new screening methods, such as p16/Ki67, HPV self-testing, and the use of artificial intelligence in colposcopic assessment, should be disseminated, as well as free HPV vaccination programs implemented in all countries. The search for new solutions is not without significance and entails ultra-sensitive screening tests for risk groups (mRNA E6/E7, SOX1/SOX14), HPV vaccines with shorter dosing schedules, and new therapeutic pathways using nanotheranostics.

show abstract

“…For women 50–65 years old, though, cotesting is less common than Pap testing alone, mitigating that possible overestimation ( Watson et al, 2018 ). In addition, cervical cancer screening modalities in the United States at the time of the survey were 80% cotesting and 20% cytology alone, indicating 14% of the women responded inaccurately to the type of cervical cancer screen they had ( Cuzick et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study

Harper

Plegue

Jimbo

et al. 2022

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Using screen counts, women 50–64 years old have lower cancer screening rates for cervical and colorectal cancers (CRC) than all other age ranges. This paper aims to present woman-centric cervical cancer and CRC screenings to determine the predictor of being up-to-date for both.Methods:We used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), an annual survey to guide health policy in the United States, to explore the up-to-date status of dual cervical cancer and CRC screening for women 50–64 years old. We categorized women into four mutually exclusive categories: up-to-date for dual-screening, each single screen, or neither screen. We used multinomial multivariate regression modeling to evaluate the predictors of each category.Results:Among women ages 50–64 years old, dual-screening was reported for 58.2% (57.1–59.4), cervical cancer screening alone (27.1% (26.0–28.2)), CRC screening alone (5.4% (4.9–5.9)), and neither screen (9.3% (8.7–9.9)). Age, race, education, income, and chronic health conditions were significantly associated with dual-screening compared to neither screen. Hispanic women compared to non-Hispanic White women were more likely to be up-to-date with cervical cancer screening than dual-screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.39 (1.10, 1.77)). Compared to younger women, those 60–64 years are significantly more likely to be up-to-date with CRC screening than dual-screening (aOR = 1.75 (1.30, 2.35)).Conclusions:Screening received by each woman shows a much lower rate of dual-screening than prior single cancer screening rates. Addressing dual-screening strategies rather than single cancer screening programs for women 50–64 years may increase both cancer screening rates.Funding:This work was supported by NIH through the Michigan Institute for Clinical and61 Health Research UL1TR002240 and by NCI through The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer62 Center P30CA046592 grants.

show abstract

Uptake of co-testing with HPV and cytology for cervical screening: A population-based evaluation in the United States

Cited by 14 publications

References 22 publications

DNA methylation testing with S5 for triage of high‐risk HPV positive women

DNA methylation testing with S5 for triage of high‐risk HPV positive women

Cervical Cancer Prophylaxis—State-of-the-Art and Perspectives

US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About